Article

THE PAPER CHASE — IS SPERANZO ‘STONEWALLING’ THE POLICE REQUEST TO BYRNES HEARING TAPE? … AND HAS THE AUDIO RECORDING OF THE BYRNES HEARING ALSO MAGICALLY DISAPPEARED? … RUSH TO JUDGMENT: VOX DECISION TO PULL LIMBAUGH MADE LOCALLY; WBEC DISSES A LOT OF LOYAL LISTENERS … plus … RUSH II — FLUKE’s TESTIMONY WAS NOT BEFORE CONGRESS; IT WAS ONLY STAGED TO LOOK THAT WAY

By DAN VALENTI

PLANET VALENTI News and Commentary

(FORTRESS OF SOLITUDE, FRIDAY, MARCH 9, 2012) — In the Nilan Moore Case, as most are familiar with, Team Nilan made what on the surface appears to be an incredulous claim at her arraignment.

Barrister Tim Shugrue claimed that because key documents have gone missing, the case should be thrown out. He then continued the probable fiction — it would appear, though we allow the law’s presumption of “innocence” — entering a ”not guilty” for Miss Nilan.

Naturally, Nilan did not attend the arraignment, an act of omission for a stand-up act that added to the belief that she has consistently failed to act responsibly in this case on almost every level of human consideration, not the least of which is from an attitude of care, compassion, and remorse. To the opposite: Based on her actions and inactions, the appearance is one of a spoiled, immature conceited brat who’s used to others cleaning up her mess. Of course, we could be wrong. We can’t see into her heart, a blindness, thank God, that allows great vision elsewhere.

Is Speranzo’s Office Stonewalling the PPD’s Request for a Copy of the Audio Tape in the Byrnes Hearing?

As if that wasn’t enough, we present the latest development in this melodrama.

THE PLANET has learned from sources that the Pittsfield Police Department has been trying for several weeks to obtain either a copy of the two-and-a-half-hour audio tape. That was the hearing held without public notice Jan. 12 by Nathan Byrnes, a magistrate brought in by unknown parties from Westfield to preside at a show-cause hearing to determine if the police had enough evidence against the Nilan to proceed to trial.

The police want the tape for obvious reasons. They wish to glean if for new information in the case. At the least, the material will have information to augment the police report. At the best, from the PPD’s standpoint, someone said something of a “smoking gun” nature. Sit down for what’s coming next.

Reliable sources tell us that one of PPD’s points of inquiry is to find out if the Byrnes hearing was conducted under oath. Let that sink in. Apparently, there is doubt that the witnesses and testimony were taken under penalty of perjury. If, and we only say if, there were no oaths, then anyone could have said anything without consequences. Are you beginning to see the pattern here, ladies and gentleman?

We wonder: If there another jurisdiction in the world, including the People’s Democratic Republic of North Korea, where this would even be raised as a question?

Moreover, and even more troubling, according to sources, is the concern that “the Berkshire County Clerk of Court’s office has not been cooperative” with the PPD’s request for a copy of the audio tape. Sources say the clerk’s office “has, in fact, stonewalled the process.”

The clerk in Berkshire County is, by the way, Christopher Speranzo — No Show himself.

No Oaths? Secrecy? Barring the Victim and Victim’s Attorney? Most Everything about the Byrnes Hearing Suggests a Sham

Byrnes did not notify the public of the date of the hearing. He then closed the Jan. 12 hearing to the pubic. He barred Peter Moore from attending. He barred Peter Moore’s family from attending. He barred Peter Moore’s attorney from attending. We don’t even know who attended or what evidence Byrnes considered or disallowed. It appears that Shugrue attended. Did Meredith Nilan attend? Did Clifford Nilan attend? Were they allowed to speak? Were they speaking under oath, or freelancing, as it were? No transcript of the hearing was released.

To no one’s surprise, Byrnes threw the police case out, claiming insufficient evidence. That whopper was roundly and rightfully thrashed by practically every neutral observers. On the other hand, Friends of Cliffy and other FOCs sang hymns of praise and hallelujah. They likely thought The Fix had worked and that, like the old days, pre-Internet, they could control the flow of information by hand-feeding the Boring Broadsheet a GOB version of events, shutting out everyone else, and declaring victory.

The Fix, they said, had been dialed in after initial attempts to control the information and keep the whole thing secret failed.

The police appealed, and the appellate judge, William Hadley, loudly overturned Byrnes hearing, determining it to be in essence disingenuous, faulty, and certain not warranted by the facts of the case as we know the now. That being said, THE PLANET, Perry Mason, and Judge Crater believes there are many more facts to be disclosed in the hunt for the truth of what happened on Dec. 8.

Chief Wynn Confirms Police Asked for But Have Not Yet Received the Byrnes Audio Tape

Pittsfield Police Chief Michael Wynn confirmed for THE PLANET, on the record, that officer Mark Maddalena “made a written request for a recording. As of today [March 5], we haven’t received one.” The PPD wait for a response from the court continues, as of today, according to our best knowledge. This makes us wonder: Why is is taking the police department months to obtain a simple yet vital court record?

Police Captain John Mullin told THE PLANET that Maddalena made his request of the clerk’s office shortly after the Byrnes hearing. Captain Mullin didn’t supply a specific date, but other police sources say a request for a copy of the tape was made almost immediately after Byrnes announced his decision. If true, it means the PPD has been waiting on the clerk’s office  for nearly two months on what would ordinarily be a routine procedural request.

Mullin, on the record, said Maddalena made his request of the clerk’s office “within a short time of the hearing.” Asked why the police want to audio tape, Mullin said, “We would like to use it as sworn testimony. [But] was that testimony? I don’t know that [Byrnes conducted] the hearing under oath. We are doing research on the rules of criminal procedure that govern that. [The department] is in the middle of that now. We don’t have subpoena power. We have to made a request [of the clerk].”

Mullin added that the record of the hearing is important to the police in the likely event that “one [or more] of the witnesses was more detailed or more forthcoming” than in their previous statements. That would make the testimony evidence “that we would like to have but that we don’t have now.”

Capt. Mullin: DA David Capeless is Now the Prosecutor of the Case on Behalf of The People

THE PLANET asked Capt. Mullin of he was surprised that Hadley threw out Byrnes’ ruling: “In our investigation, we determined there was probable cause. I thought there was enough [on Meredith Nilan] to go forward to trial.” Mullin said that up to the time of the magistrate’s hearing, the police department was the prosecutor in the case, but after Judge Hadley’s ruling to overturn Byrnes’ decision District Attorney David Capeless became the prosecutor. “The DA and the police will be working closely together going forward,” Mullin said. Capeless, citing a conflict of interest based on his long-standing relationship with Clifford Nilan, recused himself. The prosecution is now in the hands of a highly regarded DA from Worcester.

PLANET: “Did you ask the DA to help the police in your attempt to get the audio tape of the Brynes  hearing?”

CAPT. MULLIN: “I don’t know if one of my officers has asked the DA for help in obtaining records.”

PLANET: “Would you like to see that happen?”

CAPT. MULLIN: “I would expect the DA and the officers preparing the case would want that record.”

The plot is thickening and now has the consistency of the contents of a jar of molasses left out on the porch during a winter cold snap.

The revelation that Speranzo’s office is apparently stonewalling the PPD  immediately leads to a lot of obvious and troubling questions regarding the impartiality of justice in this case, a concern that has been present since a little after 8:15 p.m. on the chilly night of Dec. 8.

——————————————————————-

VOX SAYS DECISION TO PULL RUSH WAS MADE LOCALLY

So far, only two stations in the 600-or-so chain of stations that air The Rush Limbaugh Show have dropped the show. One of them, of course, is Pittsfield’s own WBEC AM 1420, part of the out-of-state Vox chain.

It’s unclear whether the decision was made locally or from Vox HQ. We placed a call to Bruce Danzinger, managing partner and president of Vox Communications (or is it called Vox Radio Group?) in in Wellesley, Mass., whose office is in Newton.

[An aside: The odd thing is that the parent company apparently doesn’t not have a website. Try to find it. You won’t. Also, is Vox based in Wellesley? Newton? South Burlington, Vt.? We got three different cities, and it's hard to get a straight answer. No web site? A revolving corporate HQ? A changing corporate name? Hmmmm.]

We also placed a voice mail with Peter Barry, GM at WBEC/WUPE asking for a comment.

Who Ordered WBEC to Pull the Plug on Rush?

So who ordered the plug be pulled in the most popular radio show in the United States?

“It happened the way all things happen in our company,” Danzinger said. “The local manager [Barry] came to us. He said ‘We want to do this’ and we agreed with it.” Danzinger said Barry didn’t have to convince Vox HQ of the desire/need/case  to send Rush to the showers, adding that corporate not only supported the decision but agreed with it.

When we began to follow up with more questions, Danzinger turned defensive, referring repeatedly to the statement the Vox group issued. We had not received a copy, and Danzinger said he would have Barry send the statement to us. Here is the official statement, word for word:

—–00—–

For Immediate Release 

Contact:  Peter Barry

Market Manager/1420 AM WBEC

Ph 413 499 3333

Email peterb@live959.com

AM 1420 WBEC  RELEASES STATEMENT REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF RUSH LIMBAUGH FROM THE AIRWAVES

DUE TO THE INAPPROPRIATE REMARKS MADE BY RUSH LIMBAUGH, REGARDING SANDRA FLUKE, THE MANAGEMENT OF AM1420 WBEC HAS MADE THE DECISION TO REMOVE THE RUSH LIMBAUGH SHOW FROM THE PROGRAMMING LINE-UP EFFECTIVE MARCH 5TH.  RUSH LIMBAUGH ‘S COMMENTS DO NOT REFLECT THE VIEWPOINTS OF THE STATION MANAGEMENT AND WE APOLOGIZE TO ANYONE WHO MAY HAVE BEEN OFFENDED BY HIS REMARKS.  WHILE WE UNDERSTAND THE CONTROVERSIAL NATURE OF TALK RADIO AND ENCOURAGE POLITICAL DISCOURSE, WE BELIEVE THERE ARE WAYS TO DO THAT WITHOUT EXCEEDING THE BOUNDS OF CIVILITY.  RUSH’S DEFAMATORY AND DISPARAGING REMARKS ABOUT MS. FLUKE CLEARLY VIOLATED THE STANDARDS WE HAVE SET FOR OUR STATIONS AND LEFT US NO CHOICE BUT TO REMOVE HIM FROM OUR AIRWAVES.

211 Jason Street  Pittsfield, MA 01201  Telephone (413) 499-3333  Fax (413) 442-1590

—–00—–

“I think the statement covers everything,” Danzinger said in response to our attempt at questions, including when we asked Vox was concerned that it had slapped a lot of loyal listeners in the face, sending them off to other area stations that carry Rush, including the megawatt WGY Radio 81 in Schenectady, NY. “I would really rather not answer that. I’ve already said all I’m going to say. The statement says it all.” He said he had other more important things to do than to rehash this episode. Danzinger did say that Vox was getting calls “50-to-1″ supporting the move to yank Limbaugh, though he would not share with us the actual volume of calls or even characterize the traffic.

Barry send THE PLANET a brief statement to augment the company’s press release: “The decision was made at the local level and was not made lightly,” Barry told us. “Rush has been a regular part of our lineup for many years and has a large following of our devoted local listeners. We are currently in the process of selecting replacement programming, and I welcome input from any of your readers on potential replacement programming.”

There you have it, folks: If you have any ideas for Peter Barry, send them to him at the any of the addresses listed on the WBEC press release. Those wishing to share their view on WBEC’s actions can e-mail Danzinger at voxmedia@aol.com or call 781-239-8018.

—————————————————————————-

TWO BAILING RADIO STATION AND 40 PULLED ADVERTISERS DON’T APPEAR TO HAVE DAMAGED RUSH, THOUGH IT STILL HAS TO BE PLAYED OUT

The two radio stations plus the 40 or so advertisers who pulled out, according to Rush Limbaugh, have not harmed the show financially. Of course, this is Rush making the claim. No show likes to lose advertisers, whether it’s one or 40.

Yesterday, Limbaugh said, “Everything’s cool. … Nobody is losing money in all this, including us. [Advertisers] are not cancelling the business on our stations. They’re just saying they don’t want their spots to appear on my show. We don’t get any revenue from them, anyway. The whole effort is to dispirit [our listeners].”

Audience Attracts Advertisers and Not the Other Way Around

That’s one of the questions we wanted to put to Vox chief Bruce Danzinger that the statement doesn’t address: “How many listeners has WBEC lost in dropping Limbaugh?” Yesterday, THE PLANET did 90 minutes of talk radio on WBRK AM 1340 with Bill Sturgeon, a.k.ak. “the Fat Man,” on Midday Live (the only family owned and operated radio station in Berkshire County). We didn’t discuss the WBEC decision but did talk at length about Rush’s comments and the ensuing controversy.

Listeners attract advertising, we said. Sturgeon, as a man who’s been there and done it, concurred. It doesn’t work the other way around. If WBEC sees a measurable loss in its ratings, that’s could prove out well for rival WBRK. WBEC’s Peter Barry told THE PLANET that the station had lost a large audience of loyal listeners. For many of those who bolted, the adjective “loyal” can be dropped.

RUSH: ’28 Sponsors’ out of 600 a Mere Bag of Shells

Limbaugh estimated that of the 600+ stations that carry his show (now minus two), there are about 18,000 advertising opportunities available every day.

“ABC News, who understands how this works and are purposely misrepresenting it, is out there ballyhooing that we’ve lost 28 sponsors,” Rush said. “Twenty-eight sponsors out of 18,000! That’s like losing a couple of French fries in the container when it’s delivered to you at the drive through. You don’t even notice it.” Interesting analogy.

Here’s the List of Sponsors Who Have Left

Advertisers who have pulled to day include:

Service Magic home contractor

Hadeed Carpets

Accuquote Life Insurance

Vitacost vitamin supplier

Bonobos clothing company

Sensa weight- loss program

Thompson Creek Windows

AOL

Tax Resolution Services

ProFlowers

Legal Zoom online document creator

Carbonite web security firm

Citrix software maker

Sleep Train Mattresses

Sleep Number mattresses

Quicken Loans

Girl Scouts of Oregon and Southwest Washington

Cascades Dental

Consolidated Credit Counseling Services

Constant Contact email marketing firm

Philadelphia Orchestra

Reputation Rhino online reputation consulting firm

St. Vincent’s Medical Center

Cunningham Security

Regal Assets precious medal investment group

Freedom Debt Relief

Norway Savings Bank

Portland Ovations performing arts center

Stamps.com

ABC News Story Tips Its Hand, and Heavily

In recapping the story, Amy Bingham of ABC News shows her bias in a piece written on the ABC website yesterday:

“At last count, 42 advertisers, two radio stations and two musicians have closed the door on Limbaugh following incendiary comments he made last week about a Georgetown law student who testified before Congress in favor of having birth control covered under insurance plans.”

That is inaccurate. Sandra Fluke testified not before Congress but before the House Democratic Steering and Policy subcommittee. Fluke’s testimony was staged to make it look like she was addressing a bipartisan congressional committee — the House Oversight Committee, which was conducting a hearing on women’s health. That’s what the brief taped segments released nationwide made it look like. This was a case of Democrats being disingenuous. The response is: Well, the Democrats tried to call Fluke as a witness before the entire Oversight Committee. True, but what they’re not telling you is that they made this request at the last minute, asking the chairman to pull one of the Democrat’s own witnesses in favor of Fluke.

The chairman, a Republican, made the right call. Witness before congressional committees need to be vetted. Fluke wasn’t. No one on the other side knew anything about her. They were prepared for a difference witness, again, a person the Democrats initially requested and the chairman allowed. He was a man with an expertise in reproductive science. He’s not as cute and photogenic as an angelic Miss Fluke, who, by the way, has no scientific expertise in the subject.

Thus, in Fluke’s “testimony,” she was not addressing a bipartisan panel. That would have opened her up to both friendly and hostile questioning. That may have been too much for the 30-year old activist. Fluke read a brief statement at the “hearing” and didn’t take questions.

Sandra Fluke’s Testimony, in Full: Judge for Yourself

Much has been said about Fluke’s testimony, but few have actually heard or read what she said. THE PLANET presents her remarks in their entirety:

“My name is Sandra Fluke, and I’m a third-year student at Georgetown Law School. I’m also a past-president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice or LSRJ. And I’d like to acknowledge my fellow LSRJ members and allies and all of the student activists with us and thank them so much for being here today.
(Applause)
“We, as Georgetown LSRJ, are here today because we’re so grateful that this regulation implements the non-partisan medical advice of the Institute of Medicine.
“I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraceptive coverage in its student health plan. And just as we students have faced financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously-affiliated hospitals and institutions and universities across the country have suffered similar burdens.
“We are all grateful for the new regulation that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women.
“Simultaneously, the recently announced adjustment addresses any potential conflict with the religious identity of Catholic or Jesuit institutions.
“When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected by this lack of contraceptive coverage.



“And especially in the last week, I have heard more and more of their stories. On a daily basis, I hear yet from another woman from Georgetown or from another school or who works for a religiously-affiliated employer, and they tell me that they have suffered financially and emotionally and medically because of this lack of coverage.
“And so, I’m here today to share their voices, and I want to thank you for allowing them – not me – to be heard.
“Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. 40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy.
“One told us about how embarrassed and just powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter and learned for the first time that contraception was not covered on her insurance and she had to turn and walk away because she couldn’t afford that prescription. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception.
“Just last week, a married female student told me that she had to stop using contraception because she and her husband just couldn’t fit it into their budget anymore. Women employed in low-wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice.
“And some might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that’s just not true.
“Women’s health clinic provide a vital medical service, but as the Guttmacher Institute has definitely documented, these clinics are unable to meet the crushing demand for these services. Clinics are closing, and women are being forced to go without the medical care they need.
“How can Congress consider the [Rep. Jeff] Fortenberry (R-Neb.), [Sen. Marco] Rubio (R-Fla.) and [Sen. Roy] Blunt (R-Mo.) legislation to allow even more employers and institutions to refuse contraception coverage and then respond that the non-profit clinics should step up to take care of the resulting medical crisis, particularly when so many legislators are attempting to de-fund those very same clinics?
“These denial of contraceptive coverage impact real people.
“In the worst cases, women who need these medications for other medical conditions suffer very dire consequences.

Fluke Testimony: A Litany of Vague, Unchallenged, Unquestioned Claims

Notice how Fluke doesn’t give one specific example, just vague references to unnamed women.

“Just last week, a married female student told me that she had to stop using contraception because she and her husband just couldn’t fit it into their budget anymore. Women employed in low-wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice.


In this case we excerpted from Fluke’s testimony, why is it the taxpayers’ responsibility to pay for contraception? Why do Mary Jane and Joe Kapanski have to pay because a man can’t keep his manliness out of the woman’s womanliness, and a woman can close her womanhood to his manhood?

Groucho Marx was once a guest on The Dick Cavett Show. Also on the show was a guest, a woman who had a bunch of children (as we recall, she was an author plugging a book). Cavett asked her how come she had so many kids. She answered words to the effect of how much she loved her husband.

Groucho piped in with one of his legendary ad-libs: “Lady, I love my cigar, but even I know enough to take it out once in a while.”

—————————————————————–

THAT OUGHT TO HOLD YOU, BOYS AND GIRLS, THROUGH THE WEEKEND. WE HEAD INTO OUR WITH A LIGHTNESS OF BEING AND JOY IN OUR HEARTS, DEALING IN MATTERS TOO SOFT A LASTING MARK TO BEAR AND BEST DISTINGUISHED BY BLACK, BROWN, OR FAIR. ENJOY ALL.

“OPEN THE WINDOW, AUNT MILLIE.”

LOVE TO ALL.

96 Responses to “THE PAPER CHASE — IS SPERANZO ‘STONEWALLING’ THE POLICE REQUEST TO BYRNES HEARING TAPE? … AND HAS THE AUDIO RECORDING OF THE BYRNES HEARING ALSO MAGICALLY DISAPPEARED? … RUSH TO JUDGMENT: VOX DECISION TO PULL LIMBAUGH MADE LOCALLY; WBEC DISSES A LOT OF LOYAL LISTENERS … plus … RUSH II — FLUKE’s TESTIMONY WAS NOT BEFORE CONGRESS; IT WAS ONLY STAGED TO LOOK THAT WAY”

  1. levitan
    March 9, 2012 at 9:51 am #

    Fluke’s arguments about the cost of the pill misses two important points.

    #1: The pill is not the only form of contraception and is preferred because it permits unprotected sex.

    #2: Contraception is not a medical necessity and because it is used by college students for unprotected intercourse, does not even categorize as a health amenity,

    Fluke does reveal much about her own lifestyle that most prefer to keep private, hence she is experiencing some pain as a result. In the end, I would say good riddance to both Fluke and Rush, though I’m sorry Rush is in trouble for his more or less appropriately placed quip and not his other shenanigans.

    • levitan
      March 9, 2012 at 10:00 am #

      To continue my prior comment, I’d love to hear her try to argue publicly why she and her fellow students expect health insurance to cover unprotected intercourse as opposed to splitting the bill with their partners for the usual over the counter options.

      Good thing there were no questions asked at the hearing.

  2. spectator
    March 9, 2012 at 10:00 am #

    About the advertisers dropping from Limbaugh, I work in advertising and am lucky enough to work with several of the advertisers listed as those who are pulling out of Limbaugh. To call the advertisers “sponsors” is a misnomer.

    The decree that losing the advertisers will not really hurt them is true.

    Many, but not all of these advertisers, are what we call “Direct Response” advertisers, and I can attest to the fact that several of the brands named here, ProFlowers, Stamps.com, Accuquote, Citrix, the Credit advertisers and others(all of which I personally do business with) only pay for their advertising based on the response that the media drives. We call it PI advertising, for “Per Inquiry.” There is very little financial harm coming to the radio program as a result of the advertisers dropping it. In fact I would venture a guess that ABC used this as an excuse to drop these advertisers who are not buying their ad airtime conventionally. The response metrics driven by a lot of radio advertising would surprise a lot of people with how staggeringly modest it is, so the statement is correct, as the media performs so poorly, the advertisers are not obligated to pay unless there is measurable, and actionable response. The business model established by these brands would never allow them to give media a guarantee for their ad space. They perhaps receive some modest guarantee from the B&M retail advertisers, but not a dime upfront from any of the e-comm DR advertisers.

  3. Bull Durham
    March 9, 2012 at 10:25 am #

    You know what, Dan? Regardless of your opinion or anyone else’s on whether Fluke delivered ‘expert’ testimony, or who heard it, a committee or subcommittee (by the way, those subcommittees are Congressional subcommittees, so either way it’s testimony to Congress – you’re splitting hairs on that) the main point is what was said about her. Rush said something uncalled for and stupid. Just because you don’t feel her testimony is valid doesn’t make his remarks acceptable.

    Just because Bill Maher (who I happen to think is a moron) has said horrible things about Sarah Palin doesn’t make Rush’s remarks acceptable, either. Those are the arguments of a 5-year-old (I said it because so and so said it, too, so that makes it right, Mommy!)

    As to Rush’s claim that he makes no money off the sponsors who pulled out – sorry, but that’s a lie. There are local sponsors for syndicated programming, and that money does go to just the stations, but there are also national sponsors, and that money is split between Clear Channel and the specific program that is sponsored. In the list you provided, I see between six and eight national sponsors, the rest do look like more local ones. It’s true if he has thousands of sponsors, he’s not losing much, but to say he isn’t losing anything is disingenuous at best.

    As you know, I’ve maintained this is much ado about nothing, except for being a same-day or maybe two-day story. But… arguments that lead someone to believe what he said was okay for any reason are just plain wrong. He said a dumb thing, he admitted it. Maher says dumb things all the time, and a lot of liberals think he’s a horse’s rear-end, like I do. (I know you didn’t bring up Maher, but a lot of people do in this case).

    On BEC’s decision, at the end of the day, they sink or swim based on their own ad sales. No local stations get ratings books anymore. There used to be books surveyed locally, many years ago, but Arbitron and others don’t cover small markets like this, except as “part” of the Albany market, meaning they include surveys in the Albany area, so the numbers are very skewed at best if any local station stupidly buys them to begin with. So Peter may tell you BEC hasn’t lost listeners, but he really has no way to judge that. I worked in the biz for many years, and I can tell you that ad sales dictate everything, especially locally and somewhat on the national end.

    Rush will survive. Not a big fan, but he’s one of those dominant forces in radio that find ways to make it through the rough seas and he has enough of a financial cushion to wait this out.

    • spectator
      March 9, 2012 at 11:43 am #

      Bull – the nationals are not paying for sponsorship. My agency facilitates those deals. There is not an upfront cash commitment made by them to the network for “sponsorship” They can call it whatever they want. at the end of the day It’s Pay Per Inquiry Advertising.

      • Bull Durham
        March 9, 2012 at 12:15 pm #

        If ‘your agency’ does facilitate national advertising, then you also know full well that not all national accounts on networks are “pay per inquiry” or “pay per call.”

        • spectator
          March 9, 2012 at 12:45 pm #

          Bull- I was referring specifically to the brands I mentioned in my post. Nowhere did I say “all” as you imply.

          • Joetaxpayer
            March 9, 2012 at 3:53 pm #

            2008 Clear Channel signed Rush to a 8Yr. 400 Million dollar contract.Now I’m not in the advertising business, but did sleep at a Holiday Inn last nite.To my untrained eye that means he is making a boat load of money for Clear Channel.Funny thing after one week, Sleep Train Mattresses,one of the sponsors that dropped Rush asked back in.They were declined,now thats something to sleep on.

    • danvalenti
      March 9, 2012 at 2:21 pm #

      Excellent point, BULL.

    • Joetaxpayer
      March 9, 2012 at 5:11 pm #

      @BD No one has said including Rush that his remarks were acceptable.The main reason I mentioned Bill Maher and other liberal talk show host is to show the hypocrisy.There is a clear double standard.Rush won’t survive,because there is nothing to survive.He has 2 sponsors wanting back in and 3 more new ones starting next week.I just hope WBEC will survive.I think they will,hopefully they can get a web site.

      • danvalenti
        March 9, 2012 at 7:14 pm #

        To be clear, Joe, WBEC has a website. It’s Vox Corporate that doesn’t have one.

  4. Wilson
    March 9, 2012 at 10:27 am #

    [quote]40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially[/quote]

    Yeah, it’s called being a student. Difference is that male students “struggle” to afford food while women “struggle” to buy designer clothes.

    • Molly
      March 9, 2012 at 10:36 am #

      Dan – you can do better than that! This won’t get any responses from irate women — it’s just too stupid.

      • danvalenti
        March 9, 2012 at 2:20 pm #

        “Dan”? Are you saying that I wrote this? Let’s put it to bed: We post under the name “Dan Valenti.”

    • Joetaxpayer
      March 9, 2012 at 3:35 pm #

      @Wilson,very funny, is your first name Flip?

  5. Ron Kitterman
    March 9, 2012 at 10:33 am #

    Thanks spectator smells a lot like an Occupy Wall Street move to me, They don’t pay $500 million to Rush for nothing or have 5 million listeners. I wonder if the offer code RUSH still works at pro Flowers lol

    • spectator
      March 9, 2012 at 11:45 am #

      RUSH will still work
      ProvideCommerce(proflowers parent) does not de activate any marketing response mechanisms(such as codes for discounts)

  6. Richard Arnold
    March 9, 2012 at 10:53 am #

    Berkshire County Clerk of Court’s office and every one connected with the Nilan Moore Case should be investigated. This has used up too much of tax money already.

    Dan
    could you give us a idea on how south county schools stack up with Pittsfield schools as far as there ability to educate our children. Are they doing a better job. I would like to know your feelings on this

    • danvalenti
      March 9, 2012 at 2:19 pm #

      RA
      Yes, in my view, southern Berkshire school district is doing a better job, but that’s an opinion based on anecdotal evidence.

  7. leekwriter
    March 9, 2012 at 11:16 am #

    Dan: It’s unlikely that police want the tape to “glean if for new information in the case”: Officers were at the hearing. That’s how probably cause hearings work. It’s the people who are lodging the complaint (police) v. defendant (team nilan) in front of clerk mag. Also, not to defend the closure of the hearing, but it was the ppd’s decision not to call Moore as a witness and instead use his written statements as testimony. As for his lawyer’s desire to be there to bolster the likely pending civil suit, that’s another matter entirely; for the purpose of the hearing, mr. moore was being represented by the police investigating the case.

    • Molly
      March 9, 2012 at 12:07 pm #

      Then why not give the police a copy of the tape? It’s been TWO MONTHS and they can’t get a copy of it? Why doesn’t the DA’s office supply them with a copy? Could it be that, as Shugrue asserts, that all documentation has gone missing?

      • leekwriter
        March 9, 2012 at 12:13 pm #

        Molly: I’m not arguing with the notion that a tape should be made available; just trying to correct some assumptions about how the process went down.

    • Molly
      March 9, 2012 at 12:25 pm #

      Leekwriter: The DA’s office can’t furnish the Police Department with a copy of this? What kind of help and working together is this?????

      Page #30 from the “Revised Standards For The Complaint Procedure”
      http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/districtcourt/trans998revised-complaint-standards.pdf

      Neither the “Application for Complaint” form nor the supplemental “Statement of Facts”
      form requires a signature under oath. However, the magistrate must “examine on oath the
      complainant and any witnesses produced by him, reduce the complaint to writing, and cause it to be subscribed by the complainant.” G.L. c. 276, § 22. “The preferred procedure would be to administer the oath before the complainant makes statements which could serve as the basis for the issuance of process.” Commonwealth v. Cote, 15 Mass. App. Ct. 229, 237, 444 N.E.2d 1282, 1288 (1983).

    • danvalenti
      March 9, 2012 at 2:18 pm #

      LEEK
      Thanks you for these contributions to the discussion. Points well made, well taken.

  8. echo
    March 9, 2012 at 11:44 am #

    After reading Ms Flukes testimony, I wouldn’t want her representing me in a court of law..her arguments took men out of the equation, said nothing about unprotected sex…aids- sds- herpes. As a male and a consenting partner I guess I have no responsiblity here”.. as I stated before..we pay plenty for our health insurance..my wife who’s not on the pill , believes that isurance should pay because they make the women jump through so many hoops to get the prescription for the pill …over and above the cost & prepays exams etc.. Ms Flukes had her “15 minutes” sorry..I wish she was a better advocate for women issues as it relates to health care!

    • Molly
      March 9, 2012 at 12:03 pm #

      I totally agree. And also agree with DV that her testimony was vague as well – I think she did a very poor job. Anyone graduating from Georgetown law school WILL get a job and the average STARTING salary is $165,000.00, with the range being $165,000 to $187,000. These are, for the most part, not poor people going there, fighting to afford to stay in school. The Dem’s would’ve done much better with a single-parent Mom, struggling to feed her kids and needing health insurance (not the pill!).

      And you’re right echo – she (and everyone since) have taken men out of the equation along with the fact that “The Pill” will not protect against STD’s and she should not be advocating for just that.

      It was on fox news last night that her being chosen to testify at whatever Committee meeting this was, had direct ties to former Obama White House Communications Director Anita Dunn. Surprise, surprise.

      • danvalenti
        March 9, 2012 at 2:17 pm #

        Agree, MOLLY, that the Dems picked the wrong person to be Joan of Arc here.

      • ambrose
        March 10, 2012 at 6:50 am #

        Molly – she made her pitch to a congessional committee – neither you nor i nor dv knew or ever would know she was on earth if it were’nt for rush and his vile name calling – if he put it in plain and simple words calling her a left wing activist perhaps no one would have even noticed – instead he called her a slut and got the attention of the entire country which is just what he wanted – having three daughters you have to know what her parents must have felt – echo said in the above post “when i read her testimony etc” – had she not been called a slut he never would have read her testimotty – rush will be missed on WBEC by one group of people, those who can’t do their own thinking -

        • danvalenti
          March 10, 2012 at 7:57 pm #

          AMBY
          She made her pitch to a partisan subcommittee, not to a congressional committee. That’s an important distinction, which proves that her testimony was purely political. She had nothing to say of worth or intelligence on the issue, but she made good eye candy for the TV cameras. Rush was smart enough to exploit the gaffe the Democrats made, and he gets valuable nationwide publicity. Rush is still playing a few steps ahead of the sharpest of those on what he perceives is the other side.

  9. Still wondering
    March 9, 2012 at 12:08 pm #

    Regarding the Nilan case, I’m starting to wonder if the FBI should be called in to straighten all this out. In any event, Cliffy and his daughter are toast.

    • Molly
      March 9, 2012 at 12:31 pm #

      I wouldn’t write them off as “toast” just yet… The DA’s office is obviously not helping the Police Department, but instead they are left trying to determine if it’s law that those in attendance and giving testimony under oath, and it is alleged that all documentation is missing, and if the PPD can’t even get a copy of the tape, then this just might be true. And if the DA’s office isn’t available to answer these kinds of questions from the Police for TWO MONTHS, Holy Cow!!!!

      I’ll call the Police and give them the document for the Standards of a Show Cause Hearing!!

      • charlie
        March 9, 2012 at 5:04 pm #

        WTF are you blowing about, the DA has turned it over to another office. Jeezuz.

        • Molly
          March 9, 2012 at 11:06 pm #

          Whoa Charlie Horse — calm down!!! Apparently, according to Dan’s conversation with both Chief Wynn and Captain Mullin, the police department has been waiting months for a copy of the tape. And also has questions regarding testimony being made under oath or not. My question was merely “why aren’t the DA’s office and the PPD working together on this”? Yes, I know that this case has been assigned to an Assistant DA from Worcester (good move), but Capeless is still the DA here and he can’t provide some assistance to our police department on these procedural things?? If not, why not?

  10. JLook
    March 9, 2012 at 12:47 pm #

    Question: Who and why was Nathan Bynes picked in the first place? (The real reason or reasons)

    Has anyone ever checked where he got his degrees? Who may he have gone to college with? law school? worked with?

    Just wondering?

    • danvalenti
      March 9, 2012 at 2:16 pm #

      No one has yet come forward to share why, with probably 240 other magistrates, first asst. mags, and asst. mages, Byrnes was selected. The answers to these questions could be revealing. Anyone out there got knowledge here?

  11. Dee
    March 9, 2012 at 1:19 pm #

    First off, I wouldn’t listen to Rush if I was paid. That being said, I am so sick and tired of the proper PC world we life in. He is a step above a shock jock, yet is being vilified for saying something shocking. His radio program – his opinion. I am sure that if I were to listen to him, I would find far more shocking, inaccurate, or disparaging remarks than calling someone a slut.

    As far as Ms. Fluke, if she was so concerned about student health insurance paying for her contraception, then maybe she should have chosen a different school. I know of a local college here in Western Mass. that has a bowl full of condoms in their health center for any student to take, free of charge. Problem solved Ms. Fluke – make your partner use condoms.

    As far as WBEC this seems like a very short sighted, knee jerk response. Hopefully they don’t regret it. Personally I don’t listen to either their AM or FM stations, so again, it doesn’t affect me in the least.

    • danvalenti
      March 9, 2012 at 2:15 pm #

      Excellent post, well thought out. It advances the discussion. Thanks, DEE.

    • Slence Dogood
      March 10, 2012 at 5:41 pm #

      If you don’t listen to him how can you be so sure you would find far more shocking, inaccurate, or disparaging remarks than calling someone a slut? Is your opinion of his show based on what others say? Do the people who you get your info from do the same thing. It’s been my experence that those who hate the man don’t listen to his show just as many who hate this blog never read it.

      • danvalenti
        March 10, 2012 at 7:49 pm #

        SD
        This comment is perception itself. Some of our worst critics, as are Rush’s, are those who never read the blog. When I was doing daily talk radio, my worst critics were those who never listened to the show.

  12. Dave
    March 9, 2012 at 1:32 pm #

    Perhaps it is time to have a petition sent to the State Attorney General’s Office:
    The following is coppied from the Public Integrity Division.

    Please note: Investigated are Crimes that have a corrosive or harmful effect on public confidence in our government and other trusted institutions, including such crimes as perjury and obstruction of justice.

    The Public Integrity Division investigates and prosecutes serious criminal misconduct involving:

    •Crimes committed against or upon public agencies,

    •Corrupt public employees and public entities who engage in or conspire to commit larceny, fraud, bribery, gratuities, and other crimes in which there is a hidden personal financial interest, and

    •Crimes that have a corrosive or harmful effect on public confidence in our government and other trusted institutions, including such crimes as perjury and obstruction of justice.

    The Division’s most significant cases are those that have an impact beyond the facts of the individual case, that involve particularly vulnerable victims, or that assist in restoring trust and confidence in our public institutions.

    The Public Integrity Division is staffed by a group of experienced prosecutors who partner with State Police troopers and civilian financial investigators in the Office, and local, state, and federal investigative and enforcement agencies. Prosecutors, troopers, investigators, victim witness advocates, and support staff work collaboratively to investigate and prosecute matters using the most sophisticated resources available to law enforcement.

    • danvalenti
      March 9, 2012 at 2:14 pm #

      DAVE
      Thank you for sharing this. This is what we love about cyberjournalism. It has taken the control of information out of GOB hands and put it back into the hands of the people, at least partially. This information will come as news to most of us, as it did to me. I wasn’t aware of the Public Integrity Division. The language is most inviting, especially: “Please note: Investigated are Crimes that have a corrosive or harmful effect on public confidence in our government and other trusted institutions, including such crimes as perjury and obstruction of justice.” The Nilan-Moore Case has certainly eroded public confidence in what should be among our “most trusted institutions.”

    • Molly
      March 9, 2012 at 5:39 pm #

      Dave – I agree totally that it is (past) time to submit a petition to the State’s Attorney General. And thanks for this information – I also didn’t know that they had a “Public Integrity Division”. If I can, I will try calling them on Monday and asking what format for a petition is allowed – i.e., can we do it electronically? (Usually not as they want actual signatures, but it is still worth an ask.) Or perhaps they have some other suggestions. This SO fits in with the people of this city’s perception that we can no longer trust our criminal justice system!

  13. GMHeller
    March 9, 2012 at 2:36 pm #

    “An aside: The odd thing is that the parent company apparently doesn’t not have a website.”

    Now don’t that not beat all!

    • danvalenti
      March 9, 2012 at 3:36 pm #

      Yes. Nearly everything about my experience contacting VOX poo bahs (not dealing with the local station, to be clear) was odd. No website. No straight answer on where the HQ is located. Different official names for the company. When I asked the Vox CEO for his e-mail address after giving my contact information, he initially refused. After we discussed it further, he finally gave me a generic aol account in the “vox” name. It makes you wonder: What’s up with all that?

      • Molly
        March 9, 2012 at 10:44 pm #

        I agree – there are numerous different “official names” and headquartered in numerous different locations. It’s the oddest thing that I’ve ever seen.

  14. charlie
    March 9, 2012 at 2:39 pm #

    The DA has no long-standing relationship or any relationship at all with Clifford Nilan, as you have written. The DA’s office works with the probation dept. That’s it.

    • Molly
      March 9, 2012 at 5:29 pm #

      Charlie — I understand the points that you have been making and they are well noted. However, I really would like to know why the DA’s office isn’t working with the PPD on this? Why didn’t the DA’s office supply them with a recording of the show-cause hearing? Why isn’t the DA’s office answering their questions regarding those testifying being sworn in or not? And share with them the published “Standards for Show Cause Hearings” (as I did above)? Or any other legal or procedural questions that they may have? You have to agree that their waiting two months for a copy of the recording is not only unacceptable from many aspects, but sure does also give more credence to the public’s non-trust of our criminal justice system.

      Your response is appreciated.

    • GMHeller
      March 9, 2012 at 7:10 pm #

      Charlie, that’s merely an assumption on your’s and Valenti’s part.
      We still do now know what Capeless’ advice was to Byrnes prior to the Magistrate’s hearing.
      We also don’t know whether or not it was Capeless who advised closure of the hearing to public and to the victim’s lawyer?

      • GMHeller
        March 9, 2012 at 7:11 pm #

        CORRECTION: We still do not know what Capeless’ advice was to Byrnes prior to the Magistrate’s hearing.

      • conor berry
        March 10, 2012 at 3:35 am #

        Mr. Heller,

        To the best of my knowledge, the DA’s office has nothing to do with show-cause hearings, which involve the “cops” vs. the “would-be defendant” and essentially are a precursor to a potential arraignment.

        Once a case advances to the criminal phase, and a person becomes an actual defendant, then it’s the “government” vs. “defendant.” Prior to that, prosecutors are not involved.

        Also, I don’t think the DA’s office is necessarily apprised every time the police make an arrest, particularly if they catch someone red-handed during commission of a crime. They typically book them, then call the on-duty bail clerk (a clerk-magistrate or assistant clerk-magistrate). Clerks, like judges, have the discretion to set bail accordingly or to release someone on personal recognizance, depending on the person’s record or the gravity of the alleged offense.

        IN cases such as this one, in which no arrest was made, there may have been some prior back-and-forth between the cops and the DA’s office regarding what potential charges to bring, but I have no personal knowledge if any such consultation occurred.

        I do know that the DA’s office plays no role in prepping a judge or a magistrate in advance of a case (that’s just beyond the pale). And, as you’re probably aware,some judges in the Berkshires have a fairly adversarial relationship with local cops and prosecutors, and vice versa. Anyone who has watched the court system over the years knows which judges were formerly prosecutors and which were formerly defense attorneys. And, which were formerly real estate attorneys or never did any sort of criminal work prior to winning a career appointment to the bench.

        Regards,
        Conor

        • GMHeller
          March 10, 2012 at 10:38 am #

          Conor Berry,

          Seems to me that a few weeks back — sometime between January 16th and January 23rd — DA Capeless made a somewhat cryptic comment in some venue that he had given advice on the Nilan-Moore matter.
          Mr. Capeless did not specify to whom he gave that advice but his comment implies it was either to PPD or to Magistrate Nathan Byrnes.
          What is important to know is to whom the advice was given and what was the advice?
          Further, Capeless certainly must have some opinion regarding the closure to victim Moore’s attorney of the Nilan show-cause hearing.

          • conor berry
            March 11, 2012 at 6:42 am #

            I do recall him discussing the case, briefly, in an Eagle article, but I’m guessing his focus, for now, is on the triple homicide case — and the press he’s gotten from his handling of that matter.

            Conor

        • danvalenti
          March 10, 2012 at 8:00 pm #

          CONOR
          That’s our understanding, as well. In show-cause, the police are prosecutors. When a case moves to trial on criminal charges, it’s the DA representing The People. Now, it’s The People vs. Meredith Nilan. Also true about local judges: Some came up through the ranks as prosecutors and some as defense attorneys. You can tell their philosophical leanings by the way they handle cases.

        • Molly
          March 10, 2012 at 9:31 pm #

          Conor — not totally true. The DA IS involved even though it’s the police representing the victim through the Show Cause Hearing — throughout the “Revised Standards on The Complaint Procedure” are the words, “the magistrate may choose to decline to issue a complaint unless the District Attorney’s office wishes to prosecute.” Here’s a few other interesting pieces from that document:
          Even where there is probable cause, if the magistrate has reason to believe that the District Attorney’s office might not wish to prosecute a particular offense, the magistrate has the option of deferring decision and inquiring of the District Attorney’s office. If the District Attorney’s office declines to prosecute (often because the matter is relatively minor or can be litigated civilly), the magistrate should give serious consideration before authorizing a complaint, since it is usually desirable that decisions involving prosecutorial discretion be made by “the people’s elected advocate.” Commonwealth v. Gordon, 410 Mass. 498, 500, 574 N.E.2d 974, 976 (1991).

          Any facts presented to the magistrate to support or oppose a finding of probable cause for the complaint should be given under oath or affirmation. A record must be made of any written or oral evidence on which the magistrate relies to establish probable cause for the complaint.

          Presumptively, show cause hearings are private and closed to the public. The complainant and the accused, and their counsel, have a right to attend. When an alleged victim is not the complainant, he or she should be permitted to attend unless subject to a witness sequestration order. A family member or friend of either party should generally be permitted to be in attendance for support unless subject to a sequestration order. Persons who cannot contribute materially to the proper hearing or disposition of the application should be excluded from a private hearing.

          All witnesses must be sworn or make an affirmation. Part of Suggested Opening Remarks Before A Show Cause Hearing: Then will everyone who is going to testify in this matter, please raise you right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the evidence that you will give in the matter now in hearing will be the truth, so help you God?

          Since September 7, 2004, Mass. R. Crim. P. 3(g) requires that any criminal complaint be based on a magistrate’s or judge’s finding of probable cause and also that “the facts constituting the basis for the complaint . . . . be either reduced to writing or recorded.” Defendants may seek to dismiss the complaint if the record shows that the magistrate lacked probable cause to authorize the complaint or that the magistrate failed to comply with the rule’s directive to CHALLENGING THE ISSUANCE OF A COMPLAINT BY A MOTION TO DISMISS 61 preserve an adequate record of the facts underlying the probable cause finding. See DiBennadetto, supra; Reporter’s Notes to Mass. R. Crim. P. 3(g) (noting that “the consequences, if any, of the failure of the record in a particular case to demonstrate probable cause is a matter that the rule does not address” but quoting DiBennadetto that “the defendant’s remedy is a motion to dismiss”).

          5:00 General rule regarding public access
          Based on common law and constitutional grounds, criminal complaints and most other court records are presumptively open to the public even though the Commonwealth’s general public access statutes do not apply to court records.
          After a complaint is issued, the application, together with any record of the facts presented to the magistrate, including any recordings, becomes part of the criminal case file and is publicly available unless impounded by a judge.
          The accused has the right to view and obtain a copy of any application and supporting documents filed against him or her and a recording of any testimony recorded at a show cause hearing.
          By statute, the clerk-magistrate has the care and custody of the court’s records and must keep a record of all its proceedings. G.L. c. 218, § 12. Criminal case files should be complete and stored in a systematic manner that ensures their reliability and integrity and also allows for their timely and efficient retrieval both for the court’s use and to respond to requests for public access.
          Here’s the link to the document again:
          http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/districtcourt/trans998revised-complaint-standards.pdf

          p.s. Were you able to find out any information about the “missing files” as Shugrue alleges?

          • conor berry
            March 11, 2012 at 6:45 am #

            Thanks for this info. We’ll be following on the Nilan case, including the “missing” info angle. Inquiries are being made as well as formal records requests.

            C.B.

  15. tito
    March 9, 2012 at 6:10 pm #

    Molly and Dan would make great sea warders.

  16. Mark Powell
    March 9, 2012 at 6:40 pm #

    I think you are all missing the point. WBEC is the same station that dropped Imus after his Nappy Headed Ho comment.. WBEC took him back after his apology.

    • ambrose
      March 10, 2012 at 6:52 am #

      WBEC did not drop imus – imus went of the air totally

  17. GMHeller
    March 9, 2012 at 7:04 pm #

    Mr.Valenti, why hasn’t anyone filed a FOIA request for the documents and tape of the Byrnes hearing?
    If Speranzo doesn’t come up with the goods in 10 days, the Sec’y of State’s Office gets involved and they have been known to move mountains.

    • Molly
      March 9, 2012 at 10:51 pm #

      We’ve been asking this for months now, too. No one ever does it (and I admittedly don’t know a thing about filing a FOIA request- knowing the government, it could be hell to do). However, these documents are suppose to be accessible to the public upon request (and payment per page and per 90 min. of tape) so there shouldn’t even need to be a FOIA request filed. Except as you say, if the request isn’t completed within 10 days, the Sec’y of State’s office gets involved.

      • leekwriter
        March 10, 2012 at 7:15 am #

        courts are not subject to the states public records laws.

        • Molly
          March 10, 2012 at 9:07 pm #

          Wellll, not “exactly” true! From the “Revised Standards on the Complaint Procedure”:
          “Based on common law and constitutional grounds, criminal complaints and most other court records are presumptively open to the public even though the Commonwealth’s general public access statutes do not apply to court records.”

  18. CONCERNED
    March 9, 2012 at 9:36 pm #

    My advice to Ms Nilan. Tell your father and that lawyer you have had it.Make a plea deal like everyone else does with such strong evidence against them. Pay a fine, lose your license for 3 months and get on with your life. Ms Nilan if you don’t your lawyer will drag this on for ever. Get it over with, so all this talk about you will end and you can get on with your YOUNG life.

    • Spectator
      March 10, 2012 at 9:58 am #

      Right! It must suck soooo much to have to do the WALK OF SHAME across the street from the PPD on her way into and out of work at the Legacy Bank(who must love being associated with this) building every day. Suck it up Princess, take the egg to the face, and deal with the consequences like every other decent person does. Being considered Notoriously Infamous for this whole drama is no way for a respectable “young professional” to be viewed by the people of your own hometown! Ms Nilan is surely giving the haters a very legit reason to hate.

    • levitan
      March 10, 2012 at 2:23 pm #

      Not likely to happen. I would think that admission would expose her in the civil court. She would do well to skip the games as it seems to me she is digging herself into a rather deep hole.

      The shenanigans she and her lawyers are performing; however, are likely done for show. There is a small number lawyers who will perform whatever their clients request simply to ring up the bill and despite whatever cost comes to their reputation in the courts.

    • Jeff
      March 10, 2012 at 6:50 pm #

      Once she makes a guilty plea the civil suit will become an automatic cash cow for Peter Moore. While her dad may have saved the house with the homestead act, he will most likely lose everything else.

  19. Molly
    March 9, 2012 at 10:37 pm #

    Vox Communications, LLC
    http://www.voxcommunicationsllc.com/

    DV – I spent a little time looking for this and it wasn’t easy to find! In addition, I came across at least 5 or 6 additional names (and locations!!!) for this company. And the website above doesn’t give a lot of info. either! Actually, almost nil.

    Take a look at this Bloomberg BusinessWeek Summary of “Vox Communications, LLC” – specifically who it shows as “Key Executives” (i.e., Peter Barry is Vice President of the Corporation). To me, since Peter Barry is the “local manager” of WBEC and also a corporate Vice President, that pretty much greys the entire scenario of was it a local decision or a corporate one because it’s both and from the same person.
    http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=12299345

  20. Judas Priest
    March 10, 2012 at 9:58 am #

    Concerned you have given Ms. Nilan good advice here. She is young, 24 she has most of her adult life before her/ Shes at a fork in the road she either does as you suggest which is the best way out of this mess for her or she lets lawyers and her father ruin her life for good. I hope she has the courage to do the right hting.
    As for WBEC the station seems to be acting on principal. The GM admits losing a lot of loyal listeners they don’t do that unless they believe in something, right? Want a suggestion to reaplace Ruch? Get Valenti on the air doing talk, no one did it better locally and he generates an instand sudience. WBEC Get Valenti!

    • GMHeller
      March 10, 2012 at 10:55 am #

      JP, It was an incredibly dumb business move on the part of WBEC and Vox; one that advertisers who fled Limbaugh are already regretting.
      If WBEC doesn’t reverse there will quickly be another commercial station to take WBEC’s place in the Limbaugh station line-up — and much sooner than later.
      Limbaugh rules the airwaves from 12p-3p and every radio executive in the USA knows this factoid.
      If Vox Communications is as loaded-up with debt as one might suspect, letting Limbaugh go was an incredibly poor business choice.
      But hey, it is certainly Vox’s choice to shoot itself in the foot; The Berkshire Eagle has been doing THAT for years and look at The Eagle’s circulation and future prospects.

      • Slence Dogood
        March 10, 2012 at 5:30 pm #

        the Albany market has been and is available for Rush listeners

      • danvalenti
        March 10, 2012 at 7:54 pm #

        GMH
        Agreed: an incredibly dumb move by WBEC and Vox. Twould be a great move for WBRK to bring Rush aboard.

    • dusty
      March 10, 2012 at 1:29 pm #

      They will probably shoot for Krol instead. He might work for free just to hear himself talk.

      • Slence Dogood
        March 10, 2012 at 5:31 pm #

        LOL

    • danvalenti
      March 10, 2012 at 7:55 pm #

      JP
      We’re not available.

    • ambrose
      March 11, 2012 at 6:14 am #

      Valenti would draw better in Pittsfield than Rush – Rush has 15,000,000 listeners so he claims – does anybody believe there are 15,000,000 people sitting there for 3 hours listening to that rant? – if there are then they must be either unemployed or old – both those groups have a better chance throwing in with the dems -

  21. Judas Priest
    March 10, 2012 at 2:40 pm #

    Theyd go with Krol is they want the ‘fairy tale’ version of how great everything is on GOb land of Pitts, they go with Valenti if they want ‘must listen’ talk that wont pull punches. The first will put a tiny audience to sleep the second will piss everyone off or make them giddy and mean caching ca-ching for advertiser I own a small business in Pitts for will definitely advertise on any show dv dows.

    • danvalenti
      March 10, 2012 at 7:52 pm #

      JP
      Well, let’s put this to rest: Unless it was the proverbial offer we cold not refuse, we can’t envision a scenario under which we’d do local, daily talk radio again.

  22. Fan Dan Go
    March 10, 2012 at 4:04 pm #

    The whole Nilan thing is a fish rotting from the head because it’s cliffy, who thought he could pull another coverup as he has done so many time in the past. Not this time tho! Someone, the DA, the AG, the FBI, Deputy dog, someone needs to investiagate cliffy, no show, and the whole rotten crew. how much more do they expect the good people to put up with?

    • Jeff
      March 10, 2012 at 7:42 pm #

      Amen!!!

      The justice system in Berkshire County is an absolute farce!

    • danvalenti
      March 10, 2012 at 7:51 pm #

      An investigation may be the only way to see how bad things are, but who would you trust to do it? I personally would go with Deputy Dawg and Mush Mouse.

  23. CONCERNED
    March 10, 2012 at 8:12 pm #

    Boy to bad Judge Clem Ferris isn’t still running that court, things would be different. Judge Rutberg running it is such a joke. He is a son of a worthy surgeon from PA, doesn’t know anything about life. President of Stockbridge Golf club, and hangs out at Red Lion Inn. Ask any law enforcement officer and they will tell you how they bust their ass to catch these bad people and all Rutberg does is let them go. Judge Rutberg doesn’t have a clue.

  24. Molly
    March 10, 2012 at 10:20 pm #

    56 Circular Avenue House

    Recall the house at 56 Circular Avenue that we taxpayers paid a fortune to renovate but was only appraised at $128,000? (I can’t recall how much it cost to renovate but it was a LOT!) Recall all the hoopla on all the blogs about how ridiculous this was? Well, apparently it wasn’t ridiculous enough for Deanna Ruffer as it’s not being sold for the appraised value – WE are giving a 15% DISCOUNT and the new price of the property is $108,800. This will provide the new home owner with an immediate equity investment (yeah – our investment!) as well as helping people to obtain convential mortgage financing. The deadline for submitting an application to the lottery for this house was March 8th, but I just noted that it has been changed to now be April 5th (did we not have any applicants???)

    Is Deanna Ruffer’s ‘appointment’ a permanent one or is it expected that Bianchi will make his own appointment to this position (or perhaps eliminate the position altogether)?

    • dusty
      March 11, 2012 at 7:08 am #

      Perhaps she will come on this blog and give us an update. I know she likes to share what she is doing with the people she works for.

      Or I suppose I could have that last part wrong.

    • Scott
      March 12, 2012 at 4:14 am #

      Maybe a tax payer will get the property?

  25. Jonathan Melle
    March 11, 2012 at 2:06 pm #

    The Berkshire Eagle had a couple of good news articles against Nuciforo in its Sunday edition today. I wonder how Dan Valenti will respond?

    • Jeff
      March 11, 2012 at 6:03 pm #

      Yes, they did have a few articles and it certainly appears they are doing their best to knock his ass out of the race. He may want to reconsider running again for register of deeds again and soon. From what I’ve been hearing there’s some pretty stiff competition entering that race.

    • Molly
      March 11, 2012 at 8:51 pm #

      Two very large articles that were aimed at trying to do major damage to Andy Nuciforo. Geeeeeesh it is so nice to have non-biased media that just reports ALL the news about ALL the candidates — NOT!!! Why doesn’t the Eagle ever “get it” that we don’t want to read this kind of crap – we want non-biased reporting on all of the candidates — period! And we don’t want the “favored GOB’s” dictating what gets printed and when. Someone locally knows something pretty good about someone high up at The Eagle or their parent company!!! For me personally, these two articles will cause me to vote for Andy Nuciforo!! If the Eagle doesn’t like him, then he must be ok!

      That and he’s the only one who took the time to return my telephone call and help me when this city tried to screw me by upping my property taxes 1006% in one year!! Oh and btw, I ended up winning that – thank you very much Andy Nuciforo and Melissa Mazzeo!!

      • danvalenti
        March 12, 2012 at 6:12 am #

        Pure and simple: Hatchet jobs by the BB, acting on orders from the Marse.

  26. Jonathan Melle
    March 11, 2012 at 7:47 pm #

    Someone does not like Dan Valenti:
    http://westernmass.craigslist.org/vnn/2888397428.html

    • Molly
      March 11, 2012 at 8:42 pm #

      Sounds like a coward to me – no name, no info, just trying to slander. He or she also sounds very jealous!!!

      • LV
        March 11, 2012 at 10:14 pm #

        That makes my blood boil!

      • danvalenti
        March 12, 2012 at 6:12 am #

        Exactly. Garbage like that we just laugh off.

        • Scott
          March 13, 2012 at 4:17 am #

          Dan, you love it because it means you’re getting to someone and you love getting to people.

    • danvalenti
      March 12, 2012 at 6:11 am #

      Probably one of my girlfriends from college who still hasn’t gotten over that last, tearful goodbye!

      • levitan
        March 12, 2012 at 6:15 am #

        That posting takes us back to the conversation about slander and libel. The content of that listing qualifies, and it may even violate other laws.

        If I had written it, I would have trouble sleeping at night for fear.

  27. @concerned
    March 20, 2012 at 8:00 pm #

    I agree. Well said..